A critique of the UK's JNCC seismic survey guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals: best practise?

Multiple field-based methods to assess the potential impacts of seismic surveys on scallops

Marine seismic surveys are an important tool to map geology beneath the seafloor and manage petroleum resources, but they are also a source of underwater noise pollution. A mass mortality of scallops in the Bass Strait, Australia occurred a few months after a marine seismic survey in 2010, and fishing groups were concerned about the potential relationship between the two events. The current study used three field-based methods to investigate the potential impact of marine seismic surveys on scallops in the region: 1) dredging and 2) deployment of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) were undertaken to examine the potential response of two species of scallops (Pecten fumatus, Mimachlamys asperrima) before, two months after, and ten months after a 2015 marine seismic survey; and 3) MODIS satellite data revealed patterns of sea surface temperatures from 2006-2016. Results from the dredging and AUV components show no evidence of scallop mortality attributable to the seismic survey, although sub-lethal effects cannot be excluded. The remote sensing revealed a pronounced thermal spike in the eastern Bass Strait between February and May 2010, overlapping the scallop beds that suffered extensive mortality and coinciding almost exactly with dates of operation for the 2010 seismic survey. The acquisition of in situ data coupled with consideration of commercial seismic arrays meant that results were ecologically realistic, while the paired field-based components (dredging, AUV imagery) provided a failsafe against challenges associated with working wholly in the field. This study expands our knowledge of the potential environmental impacts of marine seismic survey and will inform future applications for marine seismic surveys, as well as the assessment of such applications by regulatory authorities.

A modelling comparison between received sound levels produced by a marine Vibroseis array and those from an airgun array for some typical seismic survey scenarios

Marine Vibroseis (MV) may provide a marine seismic sound source that has less environmental impact than conventional airguns. Modelled sound levels from a realistic MV array and airgun array with similar downward energy at frequencies <100Hz were compared under three scenarios: shallow, deep, and slope. Changing the layout of the MV array's higher frequency sources reduced sound exposure levels (SELs) by 4dB. At 100m range this MV was 20dB lower in peak-to-peak sound pressure level vs. the airgun array, decreasing to 12dB lower at 5km, the maximum modelled range for peak levels. SELs were less clear-cut, but for both shallow and deep water, MV produced 8dB lower SELs than the airguns at 100km range because of MV's reduced bandwidth. Overall, MV produced lower broadband SELs, especially at long range, and lower peak pressure, especially at short range, than airguns.

A critical review of the potential impacts of marine seismic surveys on fish & invertebrates

Marine seismic surveys produce high intensity, low-frequency impulsive sounds at regular intervals, with most sound produced between 10 and 300Hz. Offshore seismic surveys have long been considered to be disruptive to fisheries, but there are few ecological studies that target commercially important species, particularly invertebrates. This review aims to summarise scientific studies investigating the impacts of low-frequency sound on marine fish and invertebrates, as well as to critically evaluate how such studies may apply to field populations exposed to seismic operations. We focus on marine seismic surveys due to their associated unique sound properties (i.e. acute, low-frequency, mobile source locations), as well as fish and invertebrates due to the commercial value of many species in these groups. The main challenges of seismic impact research are the translation of laboratory results to field populations over a range of sound exposure scenarios and the lack of sound exposure standardisation which hinders the identification of response thresholds. An integrated multidisciplinary approach to manipulative and in situ studies is the most effective way to establish impact thresholds in the context of realistic exposure levels, but if that is not practical the limitations of each approach must be carefully considered.

A systematic review on the behavioural responses of wild marine mammals to noise: the disparity between science and policy

Noise can cause marine mammals to interrupt their feeding, alter their vocalizations, or leave important habitat, among other behavioural responses. The current North American paradigm for regulating activities that may result in behavioural responses identifies received levels (RL) of sound at which individuals are predicted to display significant behavioural responses (often termed harassment). The recurrent conclusion about the need for considering context of exposure, in addition to RL, when assessing probability and severity of behavioural responses led us to conduct a systematic literature review (370 papers) and analysis (79 studies, 195 data cases). The review summarized the critical and complex role of context of exposure. The analysis emphasized that behavioural responses in cetaceans (measured via a linear severity scale) were best explained by the interaction between sound source type (continuous, sonar, or seismic/explosion) and functional hearing group (a proxy for hearing capabilities). Importantly, more severe behavioural responses were not consistently associated with higher RL and vice versa. This indicates that monitoring and regulation of acoustic effects from activities on cetacean behaviour should not exclusively rely upon generic multispecies RL thresholds. We recommend replacing the behavioural response severity score with a response/no response dichotomous approach that can represent a measure of impact in terms of habitat loss and degradation.

JNCC guidelines for minimising the risk of injury and disturbance to marine mammals from seismic surveys: We can do better

The U.K.'s Joint Nature Conservation Committee 1998 guidelines for minimising acoustic impacts from seismic surveys on marine mammals were the first of their kind. Covering both planning and operations, they included various measures for reducing the potential for damaging hearing - an appropriate focus at the time. Since introduction, the guidelines have been criticised for, among other things: the arbitrarily-sized safety zones; the lack of shut-down provisions; the use of mitigation measures that introduce more noise into the environment (e.g., soft-starts); inadequate observer training; and the lack of standardised data collection protocols. Despite the concerns, the guidelines have remained largely unchanged. Moreover, increasing scientific recognition of the scope and magnitude of non-injurious impacts of sound on marine life has become much more widespread since the last revisions in 2010. Accordingly, here we present feasible and realistic recommendations for such improvements, in light of the current state of knowledge.

Assessing environmental impacts of offshore wind farms: lessons learned and recommendations for the future

Offshore wind power provides a valuable source of renewable energy that can help reduce carbon emissions. Technological advances are allowing higher capacity turbines to be installed and in deeper water, but there is still much that is unknown about the effects on the environment. Here we describe the lessons learned based on the recent literature and our experience with assessing impacts of offshore wind developments on marine mammals and seabirds, and make recommendations for future monitoring and assessment as interest in offshore wind energy grows around the world. The four key lessons learned that we discuss are: 1) Identifying the area over which biological effects may occur to inform baseline data collection and determining the connectivity between key populations and proposed wind energy sites, 2) The need to put impacts into a population level context to determine whether they are biologically significant, 3) Measuring responses to wind farm construction and operation to determine disturbance effects and avoidance responses, and 4) Learn from other industries to inform risk assessments and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. As the number and size of offshore wind developments increases, there will be a growing need to consider the population level consequences and cumulative impacts of these activities on marine species. Strategically targeted data collection and modeling aimed at answering questions for the consenting process will also allow regulators to make decisions based on the best available information, and achieve a balance between climate change targets and environmental legislation.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act at 40: status, recovery, and future of U.S. marine mammals

Passed in 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act has two fundamental objectives: to maintain U.S. marine mammal stocks at their optimum sustainable populations and to uphold their ecological role in the ocean. The current status of many marine mammal populations is considerably better than in 1972. Take reduction plans have been largely successful in reducing direct fisheries bycatch, although they have not been prepared for all at-risk stocks, and fisheries continue to place marine mammals as risk. Information on population trends is unknown for most (71%) stocks; more stocks with known trends are improving than declining: 19% increasing, 5% stable, and 5% decreasing. Challenges remain, however, and the act has generally been ineffective in treating indirect impacts, such as noise, disease, and prey depletion. Existing conservation measures have not protected large whales from fisheries interactions or ship strikes in the northwestern Atlantic. Despite these limitations, marine mammals within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone appear to be faring better than those outside, with fewer species in at-risk categories and more of least concern.

Navy sonar, cetaceans and the US Supreme Court: a review of cetacean mitigation and litigation in the US

One source of anthropogenic noise in the oceans which has attracted much concern is naval sonar. As a result of possible impacts of such sonar, several environmental NGOs have pursued legal cases in the United States criticizing environmental assessments conducted prior to exercises and proposed mitigation measures. Cases have been brought using the US National Environmental Protection Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, Coastal Zone Management Act and other statutes. This paper reviews the chronology and results of these various cases. During the G.W. Bush presidential administration, the legal battle went to the US Supreme Court in the case Winter vs. Natural Resources Defense Council. This case however, did not address the potential impacts of sonar on cetaceans or the effectiveness of mitigation measures. During the Obama administration, mitigation measures for naval exercises have been revised, and working groups planned, in an attempt to resolve conflict between parties.

Public awareness and attitudes towards naval sonar mitigation for cetacean conservation: a preliminary case study in Fairfax County, Virginia. (the DC Metro area)

The potential impacts of naval sonar on cetaceans has led to a series of court cases and statements of concern by international organizations. However, there has been no research conducted on attitudes of the general public with respect to this issue. To investigate this, a preliminary public survey was conducted in Fairfax, Virginia (the Washington, DC Metro region). The majority of the public sampled believed that naval sonar impacted marine mammals (51.3%), that the US Navy should not be exempt from environmental regulations in time of peace (75.2%), and that sonar use should be moderated if it impacts cetaceans (75.8%). Individuals who were conservative, Republican, and have served in the military were more likely to believe the Navy should be exempt from marine mammal protection regulations. In addition, expert interviews were conducted to gain opinions on the potential ramifications of the recent US Supreme Court case on naval sonar mitigation.